Falklands War


PDA






Milamber
April 1, 2012, 02:43 PM
30 years tomorrow since the Argies invaded. Time just flies. Never forget the look on the Sergeants face in the recruiters when my he ask my buddy why he wanted to join the Army. He told the Sergeant he "wanted to kill Argies"! Needless to say they declined his application.

I wonder what happened to all those rifle's

If you enjoyed reading about "Falklands War" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ol' scratch
April 1, 2012, 04:42 PM
Lots of them were saw cut and made into parts kits and brought into this country. I have been trying to learn a lot more about the FAL since I picked one up a month ago. On another note, can anyone recommend a good book?

Coyote3855
April 1, 2012, 05:43 PM
Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy is a very good book.

charlie echo
April 1, 2012, 05:47 PM
Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy is a very good book.
OK, I'll check it out...

denton
April 1, 2012, 05:48 PM
The British military establishment was designed to defeat other military establishments. The Argentinian military establishment was designed to control the Argentinians. It wasn't hard to predict the outcome of that clash.

stclair
April 1, 2012, 07:47 PM
On another note, can anyone recommend a good book?


Another excellent book is about to be released the middle of April. Initial release will be in e-book format on Amazon, B&N, Apple bookstore, and others. Title is Above Reproach by J.D. Kinman. I got to read a pre-release copy of it and thoroughly enjoyed it. It brings the reader in quickly and is a fast moving book. I'd highly recommend it.

Milamber
April 1, 2012, 07:57 PM
Blood Meridian is pretty bloodthirsty. Same author wrote No Country for Old Men, both excellent books as is his trilogy All the pretty horses.

Back to the OP. The Argentinians were mostly conscripts and poorly equipped for the climate. We were hampered by logistic's and the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor. But the Brits were up for it and did an excellent job. The benefit of a professional armed forces.

tekarra
April 1, 2012, 08:38 PM
I remember that very well as I rode the bus with a couple of Brits and there were a couple of Argies on the bus as well. With the recent discovery of oil in the region, one can speculate on future events, especially remembering that the Argentine government wanted its troops buried on the islands as they consider it Argentine soil.

Nico Testosteros
April 1, 2012, 08:44 PM
Brits discovered the islands and have governed them since 1834.

Milamber
April 1, 2012, 08:44 PM
At the time it was sold as a war over Sovereignty but alas it was oil not sheep that the two governments were really interested in.

Deltaboy
April 1, 2012, 09:34 PM
It was Maggie Thatchers greatest hour.

Steel Horse Rider
April 1, 2012, 11:01 PM
I am perplexed about why the books were mentioned in this post. Neither involves nor has anything to do with the Falklands War. :confused:

I recently read that the British no longer have the means to transport men and material quickly enough to rebuff an invasion if the Argies were to invade again. It is becoming a much more dangerous world when only the tyrants and loons are committed to being able to take actions they deem necessary.

Does anyone have a recommendation for a good factual book on the Falklands war?

Sergei Mosin
April 1, 2012, 11:44 PM
Argentina no longer has the means to invade, so it doesn't much matter. The British garrison in the islands is adequate to hold off anything the Argentines could do these days.

Martin Middlebrook's "The Falklands War" is a good account of the conflict.

BearGriz
April 1, 2012, 11:46 PM
I seem to remember watching a History Channel show about this war, and they pointed out that one side had a full-auto version of the FAL rifle, and another had a semi-auto version.

I couldn't find a reference online that clarified that. I did find this article that was interesting http://www.americanrifleman.org/m-articlepage.aspx?id=2760&cid=1

FIVETWOSEVEN
April 1, 2012, 11:59 PM
Must be where companies like Century Arms get their parts, or does Century even make an FAL?

throdgrain
April 2, 2012, 04:53 AM
The British forces has semi-auto FALs, the Argies had full auto.

They invaded an island where the inhabitants consider themselves British, and luckily we had Maggie Thatcher in charge in those days, so the Falkland Islanders are still British :)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Battle-Falklands-Pan-Military-Classics/dp/033051363X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1333353241&sr=1-1 Max Hastings was there at the time, and he is an eminent historical writer too, I have this book and would recomend it.

Onmilo
April 2, 2012, 10:02 AM
I was 22 at the time of the Falkland Island War and in the U.S. Army.
We were rooting for the British back then and still do.
The Falklands belong to Britain and should remain that way.

Argentina threw down the gauntlet and lost, decisively.
They need to let it go.

threoh8
April 2, 2012, 11:18 AM
The only book I've read that had much information about the Falklands was Lifeblood of War (http://www.amazon.com/Lifeblood-War-Julian-Thompson/dp/0080417760). The book uses examples from history to discuss military logistics principles. As the author was in charge of logistics for the Falklands campaign, there is a good chapter on it. Lots of interesting nuggets throughout. It doesn't gloss over the mistakes. Unfortunately, the book is intended for military logisticians, and is not well edited.

throdgrain
April 2, 2012, 12:42 PM
I was 22 at the time of the Falkland Island War and in the U.S. Army.
We were rooting for the British back then and still do.
The Falklands belong to Britain and should remain that way.

Argentina threw down the gauntlet and lost, decisively.
They need to let it go.

Same as we root for you guys! Shame about the administration though, Reagan didnt want us to send the task force there, apparently he said to Thatcher "whats a little lsland 1000's of miles away to you anyway?"

She said "would you have said that about Pearl Harbour?"

Case closed!

bannockburn
April 2, 2012, 12:48 PM
I seem to recall that even though both sides used FALs their magazines were not interchangable because they were then based on two slightly different design patterns.

shotgunjoel
April 2, 2012, 12:59 PM
I seem to recall that even though both sides used FALs their magazines were not interchangable because they were the based on two slightly different design patterns.
The British used inch pattern FALs (L1A1)
Argentina used a metric pattern FAL. The dimensions are different.

alsaqr
April 2, 2012, 02:31 PM
Virtually all the land mines planted by Argentine soldiers in the Falklands are still there. The Brits have dragged their feet on clearing mines. i made a mine clearance consulting trip to the Falklands about 15 years ago. The Brits did not like the bottom line. Some Brit company began a mine clearing "pilot project" in 2010 using cheap labor from Zimbabwe and Lebanon.

ApacheCoTodd
April 2, 2012, 03:18 PM
I had a bizarre moment one morning in London regarding this. A friend and I were staying at the Soldiers and Sailors Club there and rolled out the first morning noting an odd air in the lobby as we passed through. We get outside the front door and there's a news stand sort of affair there where everyone is crowding frantically. As we pass we see a bunch of headlines screaming in full page print things like; "It's War!", "Argies Attack!" and "Fleet Deployed!".
Having our thumb on the pulse of the "Cold War" at the time we discounted it as Russians (what the hell was an Argie to us?) so O'B turns to me and in the driest way says... "What the hell year is it, anyway?"

fpgt72
April 2, 2012, 03:34 PM
I am perplexed about why the books were mentioned in this post. Neither involves nor has anything to do with the Falklands War. :confused:

I recently read that the British no longer have the means to transport men and material quickly enough to rebuff an invasion if the Argies were to invade again. It is becoming a much more dangerous world when only the tyrants and loons are committed to being able to take actions they deem necessary.

Does anyone have a recommendation for a good factual book on the Falklands war?
not wanting to sound like "one of those people" but there is still the US....at least for a little while longer.

MtnCreek
April 2, 2012, 03:40 PM
Virtually all the land mines planted by Argentine soldiers in the Falklands are still there.

Seems like livestock would have found most by now???

Steel Horse Rider
April 2, 2012, 08:10 PM
Interesting about the FAL's used by both sides even though there was a bit of a difference. The only other war I am aware of where the opposing forces used the same primary weapon was the Russo/Finn war where both used the Mosin Nagant.

fpgt72: In my opinion I do not believe the United States government is a reliable ally to anyone in its current incarnation.........

Bojangles7
April 2, 2012, 08:21 PM
Just want to thank you guys for the history lesson. As a fan of history (especially military history) I have to admit ignorance of this war. Gotta love our public education system.

LeonCarr
April 2, 2012, 08:22 PM
I have also read that several companies want to drill for oil in the waters around The Falklands, and the Argies are stirring things up again because they think they still own the islands and want their "cut".

How many British Troops are stationed in The Falklands now?

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

gloucestergarand
April 2, 2012, 09:03 PM
I was at an Army Aviation convention in Garmisch in 1983. I had a hot red RX-7 that was a screamer...anyhow, the keynote speaker was a Brit Brigadier, their Chief of Army Aviation. Anyhow, at the end of his speech, he had to hotfoot to the flughafen...I offered to drive him, he accepted only if he could drive. anyhow, we're tearing down the autobahn, enjoying the ride. I complemented him on his speech and asked if he had any funny sorties..he did indeed. Remember, this was 1983, still in the cold war...anyhow, he said inMarch 1982 he and family had booked their ski holiday for the Swiss Alps...as he was going out the door, he said he gave his #2 the chalet private phone, but admonished him to only call if there was an aircraft fatality, or war....anyhow, he said he and his family were having a great ski trip, when the chalet phone rang. his wifey answered and gave him the phone saying it was his #2....the BG answered saying "who died?"...his #2 responded no Sir, it is war! The BG said he stammered, astonished and said the Russians have attacked? #2 responded, no Sir, the Argies! Who? The Argies....where? The Falklands! He said his next comment was..where the bloody hell is that! true story as told to me by the Brit BG!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

gunnutery
April 2, 2012, 11:08 PM
The only other war I am aware of where the opposing forces used the same primary weapon was the Russo/Finn war where both used the Mosin Nagant.

I believe the 1948 War of Independence between the newly established Israel and the Arabs both used British supplied Lee Enfields. The British were in charge of the transition as mandated by the U.N. and trained both sides. The war in Arabic is called "Nakba" (the disaster).

Sergei Mosin
April 2, 2012, 11:47 PM
In addition to the FALs, both sides in the Falklands used the Hi Power, both navies had Type 42 destroyers, and there was probably other equipment in common. Even Argentina's aircraft carrier was ex-British!

303tom
April 2, 2012, 11:58 PM
You bet I remember it, I was in Germany & we went on high alert................

shotgunjoel
April 3, 2012, 12:04 AM
Interesting about the FAL's used by both sides even though there was a bit of a difference. The only other war I am aware of where the opposing forces used the same primary weapon was the Russo/Finn war where both used the Mosin Nagant.
I'd say that most Civil Wars had the same arms on both sides, at least partially. Also, any bush war in the last 40-50 years has probably been AK-47 against AK-47.

Johannes_Paulsen
April 3, 2012, 12:09 AM
@SteelHorseRider: Max Hastings' THE BATTLE FOR THE FALKLANDS (1984) is a good account, perhaps limited only by the fact that it was published so soon after the war ended.

I visited Argentina last year. I don't tend to make sweeping generalizations about people, but it is insane how obsessed many are in that country about the Falklands. A visit to a bookstore revealed at least five different books with pride of place about the book -- one in the window basically tried to justify (in my opinion) in a Sudetenland-style fashion why the Islands REALLY were Argentinean. Graffiti on the subject (Las Malvinas son Argentinas) was pretty common.

I even encountered a group of Falkland War veterans who had set up camp and were protesting -- claiming that they'd been stationed at an Argentinean airfield in Patagonia that (they claim) had been attacked by the SBS, and that they should've been receiving full veterans benefits, which their government was trying to deny....

Anyway, this is all egged on by an administration that is trying to distract attention from economic failures at home, but there's quite a lot of popular sentiment on the issue.

They really need to grow up and get over it.

hank327
April 3, 2012, 02:05 AM
I was in the Army stationed in Germany at the time the Falklands War broke out. Having trained with the British Army's Parachute Regiment and the King's Own Scottish Borderers, I had no doubt about the outcome of the war. The only way Argentina was going to keep the Falklands was if Britain decided not to fight. Fat chance of that with Maggie Thatcher in charge of the British government.

Both sides also used the MAG medium machine gun and the Browning M2 .50 caliber heavy machine gun.

NWCP
April 3, 2012, 05:13 AM
Argentina has been making rumblings of wanting the Falklands again. I don't think they've ever really given up on the thought after all tese years. The US provided intel and logistics for the Brits as I'm sure we would in the event of another conflict. Well, as sure as I can be with our current administration. President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher shared a mutual respect and were close friends to the end. The question today would be Britain's ability to finance another conflict in the Falklands, not that they would have much choice. Troop and equipment transport would be another issue. That's where the US would be needed. In the final analysis of it all it is about the oil fields. Both Britain and Argentina want control of the oil. Can't say as I blame them. Fortunately Argentina isn't in a position to mount another war militarily, or financially. At least not in the foreseeable future. I'm curious as to what sort of naval presence the Brits maintain in the Falklands. Anybody know?

rio nueces
April 3, 2012, 06:01 AM
A stupid war. Hardly Britain's finest hour. I guess after having lost most of their empire long ago, it makes them feel good to hold on to what little bit they can.
I think the English people would be far better served if their government would restrict immigration and stop the wholesale destruction of the English folk and their way of life, rather than sending warships and good young men to kill good young Argentine soldiers.

Mp7
April 3, 2012, 06:04 AM
The argentinian dictator only started the invasion, cause demonstrations
against his regime were getting out of hand - and he needed some national
BS to unite his folks under for a while.

By stayin in power a little longer .. he won his war.
The Falklands never were the set goal.

(... which reminds me of this guy from Texas....)

Robert
April 3, 2012, 06:22 AM
Edit:
Geopolitics are not OT for THR. Bad Robert.

Johannes_Paulsen
April 3, 2012, 07:45 AM
@mp7:

The macho Argentinean Junta also thought that a mere woman like Thatcher wouldn't fight back. Galtieri and his pals definitely did not achieve their objective, which was to retire in glory so that no one would complain too loudly about all of their crimes during the Guerra Sucia in the '70s and early '80s.

alsaqr
April 3, 2012, 08:05 AM
Seems like livestock would have found most by now???


The minefields are fenced off.

Old Guy
April 3, 2012, 08:16 AM
I was living in Toronto at the time, sat in a Tim Horton's, a Donut shop.

Two Canadians, a Londoner a Brit, talking to them.

The Brit, "Maggie will not send troops, those Ireland's are not worth it"

My comment (me, from Liverpool, the North) "If that Ireland was just a rock, that was only big enough for a seagull to land with one foot, Maggie is getting it back"

She did.

fpgt72
April 3, 2012, 08:48 AM
The argentinian dictator only started the invasion, cause demonstrations
against his regime were getting out of hand - and he needed some national
BS to unite his folks under for a while.

By stayin in power a little longer .. he won his war.
The Falklands never were the set goal.

(... which reminds me of this guy from Texas....)
That is so true....people needed something else to think about....and it was a win/win for him in the end.

That last bit was funny....made pop come out my nose.

Tommygunn
April 3, 2012, 12:13 PM
A stupid war. Hardly Britain's finest hour. I guess after having lost most of their empire long ago, it makes them feel good to hold on to what little bit they can.
I think the English people would be far better served if their government would restrict immigration and stop the wholesale destruction of the English folk and their way of life, rather than sending warships and good young men to kill good young Argentine soldiers.

Oh really? A "stupid" war? Argentina invades British territory and England sends its military to get it back and it's STUPID?
Should all military invasions then go unchallanged? What license that would be for aggressors!!!!!!!
Good grief !

Sam1911
April 3, 2012, 01:49 PM
As Robert said, Geo-politics isn't topical for THR. Enough wandering.

If you enjoyed reading about "Falklands War" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!